When Susan Handelman speaks of how the Jew is accused of being too at home in the "play of signs, in the wandering of figurative language," she's speaking of the very conundrum the midrash that's the crux of this examination negotiates in a seemingly dishonest manner since the "play of signs"...
known as the parable of the sower. so yes, the duress, stress creates/forges a stronger bonding to service for self(conditional love) or service for all as self((reciprocity/golden rule or unconditional love). but only that which is fruitful to one or other will be harvested
Matthew 13:3-9...
Those are good arguments.
"hold the feet to the fire?" :thumbsup: Exodus 17:14 AND Exodus 17:16. They're both true. Simultaneously.
"imprison the mind in a grave." It's both a prison and gathering. Simultaneously. Genesis 40. Even this is for the good. Genesis 50:20-21.
" does self...
Spontaneous generation is totally different from abiogenesis. Spontaneous generation is actually a creationist belief that modern small "simple" creatures, some would even include mice, arose spontaneous. Abiogenesis does not say that at all. Abiogenesis is a hypothesis that...
Addressing the OP,
Correct, Abiogenesis vs Biogenesis.
Biogenesis means making new living things. Abiogenesis, sometimes called spontaneous generation, means life coming from non-living things.
Example, there is nothing spontaneous about plants. understand, seed are none-living, (reproducing)...
I did not watch that particular video, but I am aware of the hypothesis that there were two different versions melded together.
At any rate I do not personally use the differences between 1 and 2 to argue against it. I merely show how either version has been shown to be incorrect.
It's hard to see it, even without the Hebrew. You have to pay very close attention to what he says.
The clearest example is the land. He says that the land was wet in Gen 1, and dry in Gen 2. That is false, and easily seen in virtually every translation available.
Here's a list of...
Thank you for pointing out another contradiction in the Bible! Something you may not be aware of, there are two different creation accounts in scripture, which do not agree with each other. Genesis creation narrative - Wikipedia.
You can't just take these things and collate them together to...
Misconception #1.
THE ACTUAL FORMING OF MAN ON DAY 3
As stated Man, was “formed”, not created, but “formed” on day 3. open your bible to Genesis1:9-13 and read the 3rd day creation. next read in your bible, Genesis chapter 2:4-7. verses 5-7 tells us what God did in detail on day 3, which...
That’s quite different from what I find. Paul refers to a glory of the sun moon and stars. If the 3rd Heaven is to come when Christ comes back for 1000 years how did Paul go there? (1cor 12)
The 3 heavens are as found at 2nd Peter chapter 3
2 Peter 3:5 the heavens of OLD - Noah's Day - Genesis1:9
2 Peter 3:7 the heavens of NOW from Noah's day to our day or time frame.
2 Peter 3:13 the heavens of NEW under Christ's 1,000 year reign over Earth
I agree. But I was quoting Bodie Hodge from the answersingenesis.org article that I referenced in the OP. Also, another author from answersingenesis.org had said:
Four generations after Noah, Genesis 10:25 records the birth of Peleg (meaning division) “for in his days was the earth divided”...
There is a stark contrast between what you think, and what Bible writers knew... as stated by them.
Job spoke about the work of God's hands (Job 14:15)
David wrote about creation being the work of God's hands.
(Psalm 19:1) The heavens are declaring the glory of God; The skies above proclaim the...
Was wondering if you were going to come back with that. Actually I made a thread that dealt with that here:
The Genesis Account
Here is a copy and paste of it:
So what about the Genesis Account? Can it be reconciled with science?
I wish to author this thread to explain not only that it can...
Psalms 104 is another account of Genesis 1. Here are a few side by sides. It always helps to look at other places in the Bible.
I personally don't think Genesis 1 is describing the creation of the earth but a reconstruction of the earth after a cataclysm.
Genesis 1:2 And the earth was without...
Read what you wrote again.
But without any scriptures to tell us about what such God is all about, there is as much foundation for the biblical God as one of those
Since there is scripture that tells us what the creator - the designer (God) is all about, and there is much evidence ... none of...
Of course there can, just as there could be a Vibilical God, Gibbical God or a Hubiblical God. But without any scriptures to tell us about what such God is all about, there is as much foundation for the biblical God as one of those I named above and we would know an equal amount about them...
This fails. Having a sudden birth is not evidence for the Genesis account.
This fails. Hypotheses about the origin of water on earth are not evidence supporting the description of an early earth found in Genesis. The passage you site says nothing about the origin of that water nor does it...
Scientific Accuracy
THE Bible is not a science textbook. Yet, when it comes to scientific matters, the Bible is noteworthy not only for what it says but also for what it does not say.
:bssquare:1. Partly as a result of turning powerful telescopes toward the heavens, scientists have concluded...